It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:50 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:45 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12040
Here's another way to put it:

The federal government pays about 17% of its budget on defense. You think it should double that. You also have separately expressed being in favor of increasing your tax rate by 10% if it goes to border enforcement, primarily a wall along America's Southern border.

You estimated more than you actually pay in taxes goes to "welfare." You estimated that for most of us, in fact. Yet, you favor massively increasingly the federal budget to a degree that goes beyond the entirety of welfare. This isn't fiscal conservatism. It's a brutal military state. Just another example where your ideology is best encapsulated in N. Korea, not the West.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13348
Here's Majax when he attempts to rail against the government:

https://www.Facebook.com/realwhatguyslike/videos/1120635061403078/

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:35 pm 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 907
Location: California
Quote:
Because the military, economic and political cost under current world circumstances would be far too high. And because in any democratic country it would be next to impossible to construct any kind of consensus on which (if any) countries should be selected for the treatment in question.

But you already knew all that - didn't you?


Higher than what it cost the northern states to keep the southern states from having their own country?

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13348
Maxine Waters wrote:
Quote:
Because the military, economic and political cost under current world circumstances would be far too high. And because in any democratic country it would be next to impossible to construct any kind of consensus on which (if any) countries should be selected for the treatment in question.

But you already knew all that - didn't you?


Higher than what it cost the northern states to keep the southern states from having their own country?


So, you're a seditious secessionist too? At least with our board Marxists they don't advocate dissolving the union. Jesus. Please let me know if I'm misreading you, and I'll walk back my question.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:29 pm
Posts: 3055
Location: The Yukon Hotel - 1187 Hunterwasser Los Angeles
It was the election of the first Republican President that was the straw that broke the back of the Union. The bells of secession began ringing after Lincoln's election, well before his inauguration. So we're in this weird period of history where we have people who are ostensibly Republicans justifying their belief that the election of the greatest Republican President in American history was proper justification for secession from the Union. Meanwhile Democrats vociferously defend the actions of the first Republican President.

But truthfully, the election of Abraham Union and the dissolution of the Union were one in the same. Seven states seceded after he was elected but before he took the oath of office.

_________________
"I am more Presidential than anybody, other than the great Abraham Lincoln."
- Donald Trump
"[Trump] will go down as the greatest president ever in American history."
- Maxine (Ajax) Waters
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
Strange Fruit


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 4357
Majax wrote:
As someone who believes the confederates were right ...

Chap wrote:
SteelHead wrote:
The south was right? You believe it is OK to own another human?

Yup. That's the point.

Try imaging what would have happened if the notion of 'states' rights' had led to the institution of slavery continuing within the United States after the 1860s.

I note that ajax has never replied to Steelhead's question.

Some on this board, like subgenius, would claim that silence equals consent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:41 pm 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 907
Location: California
Slavery was becoming less profitable and would have died out anyway. It wouldn't have lasted into the 20th century. Slavery died out in the north not because the liberal elites had any moral objection to it, but because employing people was cheaper. I don't really see the condition of factory workers in "The Jungle" or even illegal immigrants today to be much better.

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 4357
Maxine Waters wrote:
Slavery was becoming less profitable and would have died out anyway. It wouldn't have lasted into the 20th century. Slavery died out in the north not because the liberal elites had any moral objection to it, but because employing people was cheaper. I don't really see the condition of factory workers in "The Jungle" or even illegal immigrants today to be much better.


Whether or not their economic condition is 'much better' by a subjective measure ignores the most glaring difference between the two situations.

One of these has the slave working and living (even outside of employment) in whatever capacity the master chooses that to be. The other offers a bit more good ol' fashioned free will in the employee's hand, regardless of the employment choice of the moment, does it not?

That aside, can you answer Steelhead's question more directly?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
Property doesn't get to choose what line of work they perform. Property doesn't get to choose to travel, or relocate. Property's family is ripped asunder at will. Property is raped with impunity, beaten without consequence, and murdered without consequence. You seem to be unable to grasp a basic difference. Color me unsurprised.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:35 am 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 907
Location: California
SteelHead wrote:
Property doesn't get to choose what line of work they perform. Property doesn't get to choose to travel, or relocate. Property's family is ripped asunder at will. Property is raped with impunity, beaten without consequence, and murdered without consequence. You seem to be unable to grasp a basic difference. Color me unsurprised.


Henry Ford beat his employees. Not every slave owner was as brutal with the slaves as you describe just as not every employer treated his employees as I'm describing.

How much choice do illegal immigrants have about what job they do or where they do it today? An empty belly is a pretty good reason to stay. I'm not saying that slavery was good nor that I'm sorry to see it go. I wish it had never happened. The consequences of it continue to afflict us today and probably will forever. But how much better is employment? Will the descendants of illegal Latino immigrants who basically function as our slaves now see us much differently than the descendants of African slaves do now?

Slavery is part of all our histories, not just southerners. And just because your white doesn't mean your ancestors were necessarily the masters.

The civil war was about the rights of states to determine their own law as the constitution originally intended. That's why the confederates were right, not because slavery wasn't an evil institution that needed to end.

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
Are you really comparing slavery to an immigrant worker?

How many declarations of secession of the confederate states do I need to post before you will concede that the reason the states left was slavery? Is 5 sufficient?

Let's start with Texas:

Quote:
Texas
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.



Why did Texas secede? They state it pretty clearly.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
Mississippi?

Quote:
Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality
, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.


I can keep going.

The civil war was about the "right" of states to own slaves. The seceding states say so. Recasting it as states rights without addressing the right that is the point of contention is dishonest.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11946
Location: On the imaginary axis
Maxine Waters wrote:
Henry Ford beat his employees. Not every slave owner was as brutal with the slaves as you describe just as not every employer treated his employees as I'm describing.

How much choice do illegal immigrants have about what job they do or where they do it today? An empty belly is a pretty good reason to stay. I'm not saying that slavery was good nor that I'm sorry to see it go. I wish it had never happened. The consequences of it continue to afflict us today and probably will forever. But how much better is employment? Will the descendants of illegal Latino immigrants who basically function as our slaves now see us much differently than the descendants of African slaves do now?


Sigh.

Neither you nor I would like to live the life of a low-skill illegal immigrant worker in the US. But ALL of them who are here have sought that status voluntarily, often at great personal risk, because conditions back home were so bad for them that being an illegal immigrant in the US was a much more desirable status for them.

I know of no instances in which any black person in the ante-bellum South had the status of slave because they had actively sought it. In every case they were either captured in Africa and transported to America in atrocious conditions, or were the descendants of people who had been. When they took a risk parallel to those of today's illegal immigrants, it was to escape from being a slave.

And you can't sell or buy illegal immigrants, you can't split up their families, you can't regularly rape their women for pleasure and to produce more people of the same status, and ...

... but why go on? Your comparison is so far-fetched it is utterly laughable, as well as insulting to the millions who were born, lived and died as slaves in a country whose founding fathers declared that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

[Edited for typo]

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Last edited by Chap on Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
South Carolina.

Quote:
South Carolina
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860





_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
Maxine's attempted comparison is ridiculous, and contempt for other humans - disgusting.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:45 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12040
It was common in the pro-slavery South to argue that the North also engaged in slavery, but it wage slavery that was, in its own way, more brutal than the Southern type.

This argument carried on through to "lost cause" defenders of the confederacy. It's carried all the way on through to Ajax.

The interesting thing about Ajax adopting it is the criticism that wage labor is its own kind of slavery because basic human needs robs people of the freedom choose otherwise is fundamentally a leftist view of economic relations. Once you accept it, socialist positions should naturally follow, yet Ajax is a borderline anarchist in his view of government sans supporting an ultra-powerful police state.

Imagine thinking that low-skilled workers are effectively slaves to capitalist pay-masters, but also that it's not the place of the voting public to do anything to protect them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:52 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12040
Maxine Waters wrote:
Quote:
So, do you now have that list for us of all of the Republicans, and pointing out to us on that list which ones are the RINOs and which ones are true and real Republicans???



Well I certainly wouldn't consider a Republican a RINO for not defending the confederacy.

Refusal to enforce the border, repeal Obamacare, etc. Republicans that are scared to go on Sean Hannity. I'm not going to say they're not Republicans but I can't call them conservatives either.

The refusal to pay fealty to a crude propagandist is the inflammatory draw of this RINO definition, but I want to point out that that his definition of RINO as it relates to immigration includes all Republican presidents of the past 60 years.

Watch this excerpt from a 1980 debate between the last two decent Republican presidents to get a sense of how far he is from them and how he's trying to coopt what it means to be Republican or conservative from that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:59 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm
Posts: 6589
EAllusion wrote:
It was common in the pro-slavery South to argue that the North also engaged in slavery, but it wage slavery that was, in its own way, more brutal than the Southern type.

This argument carried on through to "lost cause" defenders of the confederacy. It's carried all the way on through to Ajax.

The interesting thing about Ajax adopting it is the criticism that wage labor is its own kind of slavery because basic human needs robs people of the freedom choose otherwise is fundamentally a leftist view of economic relations. Once you accept it, socialist positions should naturally follow, yet Ajax is a borderline anarchist in his view of government sans supporting an ultra-powerful police state.

Imagine thinking that low-skilled workers are effectively slaves to capitalist pay-masters, but also that it's not the place of the voting public to do anything to protect them.


The situation in the Union was much more complex than slave vs non slave state. Some northern states allowed slavery, but most did not. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't end all slavery just in those states that were in rebellion. It wasn't until well after the south's surrender that slavery was officially ended with the 13th Amendment. You might be interested in this documentary
SEE http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/home/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 4357
Maxine Waters wrote:
The civil war was about the rights of states to determine their own law as the constitution originally intended. That's why the confederates were right, not because slavery wasn't an evil institution that needed to end.

I think that you need to make a stronger case for this than merely saying so. As Steelhead has already begun to demonstrate - and the link below completes - 'states rights' isn't mentioned in any of the secession statements of those states that left the US. Slavery, however, is specifically mentioned in 7 of the 11 statements.

Even if one was to entertain your claim, then what 'state right' was the kerfuffle all about?

http://civilwardocs.weebly.com/secession.html


Maxine Waters wrote:
How much choice do illegal immigrants have about what job they do or where they do it today? An empty belly is a pretty good reason to stay. I'm not saying that slavery was good nor that I'm sorry to see it go. I wish it had never happened. The consequences of it continue to afflict us today and probably will forever. But how much better is employment? Will the descendants of illegal Latino immigrants who basically function as our slaves now see us much differently than the descendants of African slaves do now?

Ajax, you're just continuing to dodge what is a very simple question. And, you keep deflecting to and hiding behind the diversion of the supposed 'inhumanity' of capitalism, as peculiar as that is coming from a conservative. You use the claimed plight of illegal latino immigrants, while not acknowledging that they chose the situation that they're in because they see it as preferable to their situation back home. This is not a parallel situation to what occurred in the antebellum South.

The issue here is free will and self-determination: Do you believe that one person should be able to own another person against the free-will of the one being owned?

I have no intent to judge you on your answer, but I do find it peculiar that you are not able to be straightforward with one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:07 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12040
It's as though the election of Abraham Lincoln spurred secession from the majority of slave-holding states, not because of his views on federalism, but because he was a free soiler.

Crazy-talk.

You know the South was such dedicated supporters of state self-determination that the Dred Scott decision was widely protested within their borders. Correct?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group